New Rule Proposal:I would like to see a moratorum on guide licenses or at least more requirements to get one. I have talked to a lot of people, being a guide myself, and this state is the easiest to get a guide license. All you need is money.
If a moratorum can't be implased we should have to show a business license, proof of insurence and first aid cpr cards.
The presue we see on the Olympic Peninsula is unreal at times. The March April steelhead fishing is very popular and we are seeing a lot of out of state guides. I also think the cost for them to get a guide license should be maximum allowed at three times the cost of a resident.
Thank you,
Randy Lato

Why the change is needed:To eleviate some of the presure on river and to make sure that guides do have required liabilities. I would think that if a person was issued a guide license recked and someone drowned without insurence the state could be held liable in this day and age.

Names of individuals or groups with whom you have discussed this change:Olympic Peninsula guide association, game warden Brian Fairbanks and many sportsman

Describe their support and/or concerns:
They agree, especially the state being liable.

Submitted by: LATO, RANDY J — FORKS, WA

Date submitted: 05/01/2012

WDFW Rule Proposal Recommendation

Not Recommended for further consideration Reference ID: DFW737156

This issue is broader than just the coast and steelhead. This issue is ripe for a discussion with the Commission, both from a requirement perspective as well as whether guide licenses should be limited. It likely would need a session to itself. There are implications for impacts to ESA listed and depressed species, hatchery reform, and effects on length of opportunity.
Though this is not a specific proposal, the idea of reducing the guided effort on the North Coast is being discussed in several circles because of the perception of the increasing number of guides and guide boats on the rivers, especially in the March and April time frames. Our Hoh River creel information suggests that guided anglers are on average about 3 times more successful than non-guided anglers. The discussions should continue, but this is not the proper forum for addressing the situation.

Online Public Comments(3 comments)

RINGLEE, CHRIS September 21, 2012GIG HARBOR, WA Comments:While this issue is outside the scope of rule proposals for 2013-2014, I find it critical for WDFW to work on limiting guide pressure on the North Coast through further guide restrictions and a moratorium on future guide license sales. Please consider beginning an advisory panel similar to SCPAG and others for the public to become involved and comment on the matter. A collaborative process between WDFW, guides, and the public will be critical for a successful outcome for all parties.
Thank you,
Chris Ringlee

WESTON, TOM January 28, 2013LACEY, WA Comments:Significantly reduce the number of out of state guides. Require that guides be required to have comprehensive insurance coverage for all liabilities. Set a quota on the total number of guides in the State. Have restrictions on where guides can operate - e.g. just a set number on the North Coast, another fisxed number on the Columbia and its tributaries, Eastern Washington, etc.

HOPPLER, WES C January 29, 2013SEATTLE, WA Comments:Partially support this proposal.
Non-resident guides need to be addressed, they have little investment to participate, are an issue with co-managers and have no long term stake in the health of the fishery.
Requirements for resident guides should be elevated with some minimum insurance and training levels. Fees should be more reflective of their impact the the fisheries.
Ask staff for a briefing on the creel survey work and the difference beteen guided and non-guided anglers.